RFFM.ORG

9/11 Remembrances: NO, WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN

Share your memories of September 11, 2001 with RFFM.org

Note from the Executive Director:

Every generation can recall an event that is collectively seared into the mind of a nation and its people.  From the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 to the assassination of John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963 and now including that horrible day on Sept. 11, 2001, individuals can tell you where they were, what they were doing and the thoughts that were permanently seared into their minds on those days.  The most mundane recollections became riveting stories of the human experience, designed to be filed away in an emotional time capsule which will never be lost. 

In 2006, RFFM.org commemorated the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy by interviewing five members of the local and national media.  Chicago area journalists shared their recollections of 9/11 five years after the devastating attacks which took the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children in New York, Washington, D.C. and in a rural field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Touching, riveting and emotional--these individuals expose their inner feelings about one more day that will live in American infamy. Read the thoughts of Charlie Wojciechowski--NBC 5 Chicago; Phil Ponce--host, Chicago Tonight WTTW (PBS); Chuck Goudie--ABC 7 Chicago; Mike Flannery--CBS 2 Chicago; and Michael J. Waters--publisher and editor, Daily Southtown (now called the Southtown Star).

RFFM.org thought it appropriate to once again post these poignant recollections of a day that truly will never be forgotten.

2011 will mark ten years since Islamic fanatics attempted to destroy the American spirit.  RFFM.org would like to hear your recollections on what you were doing and how you felt when you first learned of this national tragedy.  We would like to hear from all Americans and select a number of comments which will be featured in next year's 9/11 observance of another "day that will live in infamy"...."lest we forget".  

Please feel free to post a comment now which will be shared with RFFM.org readers from across the United States and the world.

Daniel T. Zanoza

 

 

********************** 

Charlie Wojciechowski, reporter, NBC 5 Chicago 
 
It was the first thing I saw when I switched on the TV that morning, live video of the second plane exploding as it sliced into the World Trade Center.  Matt Lauer and Katie Couric had been talking about what had, at first, seemed a terrible accident.  Then came the sinking feeling that it was not, and that the world would change forever.
 
Before I could reach for my toothbrush, the phone rang.  It was Angie Rosemond, my assignment editor.  In a calm and measured voice she told me to get to the Federal Building.  My crew would meet me there.  That started a day that none of us will ever forget.  The memories remain in the form of surreal images: standing with dozens of others as we watched the towers collapse on the monitors inside our live truck; waiting in a silent O'Hare parking lot, the staging area closest to then grounded airport; looking up at the Sears Tower, wondering if we would be next.
 
It was a frightening reality that to this day shapes thoughts, opinions and reactions to world events and one that is seared into our collective memory.
 
********************** 
 
Phil Ponce, Host, “Chicago Tonight” WTTW -- Channel 11

I woke up that morning to follow my usual routine of having a cup of coffee at the kitchen table while reading the morning papers.  Normally I never watch morning television while reading.  For some reason, though, I turned on “Good Morning America.”  I recall that Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer were anchoring.  A few minutes after I tuned in, one of them interjected that there was a report that a small plane had crashed into one of the towers at the World Trade Center and that they would have more information as it became available.

Soon afterwards, they had a live picture of the towers and while information about the first incident was coming in, I saw the second plane go into the second tower as it happened in real time.  I could barely believe what I had just seen on my little counter-top TV set and at first it almost didn’t register.  Then Charlie Gibson said something like, “We’re under attack.”  That’s when it clicked.  I felt like someone had kicked me in the stomach.  And when the towers fell, I felt a mixture of revulsion, grief and anger.

At some point during all this I got a phone call from one of our producers.  She was the first one I talked to (my wife was out of town).  I was glad the producer called.  I needed another human being to connect with—even if it was just on the phone.  Later there were more phone calls; from other colleagues about how to fashion a program that night.  And my children called from college needing to process the events with their parents.  They had questions.  Why would somebody do this?  Are we safe?  Where was God in all this?  Good questions then.  Good questions now.

********************** 
 
Chuck Goudie, reporter, ABC 7 Chicago 
 
The American flags did it for me.  There were hundreds of them hung from expressway overpasses, gas stations, truck windows and car antennas within hours of the attack. It was reflex for so many people after their turf was attacked. Hang the red white and blue.

Producer Ann Pistone, cameraman Steve Erwin and I lost count of how many flags we saw on the interstate between Chicago and Manhattan that devastating day. We had left the Loop a few hours after the assault, realizing there would be no flights to get us there. We drove all day and night watching the flags fly by. Some were strung up, others were in the hands of people who must have felt compelled to do something to express their heartache, dismay and helplessness.
 
Except for necessities we never stopped that day, aiming at ground zero as if it was the end of a tunnel. The corridor of flags gave me personal comfort and certainty that day, that despite the darkness, there was light and strength. Even while standing at ground zero a few hours later, breathing the remains of the world trade center, the American flags that guided our way to lower Manhattan made it clear that we as a nation would survive.

Five years later, it seems most of the flags have been packed away...until the next time.
 
********************** 
 
Mike Flannery, reporter, CBS 2 Chicago 
 
I remember remarking on the beautiful morning sunshine as I walked into a barber shop.  Otto had opened early to accommodate my need for a pre-work appointment.  We were the only ones in the shop.  He put some classical music on the sound system, made us some coffee and went to work trimming and clipping.  At some point, the telephone rang.  It was Otto’s wife.
 
Without putting the phone down, and without saying anything to me, he hurried over to turn on a TV.  We saw a live picture of both towers burning, then the broadcast cut away to replay video tape of a large passenger jet slamming into the second building. Otto said something in German to his wife, hung up, then slumped into a chair.  We sat in stunned silence.
 
I was having trouble wrapping my mind around what I was watching.  This was an act of evil mass-murder, conceived and executed by some very smart people. My first suspects:  “Death-to-America” Islamists, never mind that I’d been wrong in the same surmise after the Oklahoma City bombing.
 
I called the office as I raced the 4-5 blocks to get there.  They were already deploying reporters and camera crews, though it was unclear when we would ever get on the air, since CBS was going wall-to-wall with reports from New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.  I was sent to the Sears Tower, in time to see nervous workers heading home, perhaps a dozen stopping to ask me if what they’d heard was true … that another hijacked plane was still aloft and headed for the Loop.  I said what I knew: we could not determine the source of that rumor and government officials told us they thought it was untrue.
 
In a short time, no planes of any kind were visible.  The empty sky above the Loop’s almost empty-streets was eerie.  The eventual appearance of military fighter jets flying CAP (Combat Air Patrol) made it even eerier.
 
********************** 
 
Michael J. Waters, publisher and editor, Daily Southtown 
 
I was driving to the newspaper office when I tuned in WBBM Newsradio.  The live feeds from New York reported a shocking story -- that two planes had crashed into the World Trade Center towers in what appeared to be deliberate acts.  I was desperate to get to work to get the newsroom rolling on the story; the 30-minute drive seemed to take forever.
 
I was the first editor in the newsroom that morning.  I started calling reporters and other editors on their cell phones to either urge them to get into the office as quickly as possible or get them into the field at locations such as the Sears Tower.  Employees from throughout the building--including our advertising, circulation and accounting departments--gathered in clusters in stunned silence around the TVs mounted on the newsroom walls to watch the news reports.  Some wiped away tears as they watched the shocking images of the crumbling towers.
 
As more editors arrived to help coordinate our coverage, we quickly decided that we wanted to put out an extra edition.  It wasn't difficult to convince our publisher that this story was important enough to justify the Daily Southtown's first extra since the death of (Chicago Mayor) Harold Washington 14 years earlier.  The next few hours were a blur as the newsroom compiled the report and we scrambled to get the extra printed and distributed.
 
It wasn't until late that night, when the Sept. 12 newspaper had been put to bed, that the emotions of the day started to hit me.  We'd spent all day trying to help our readers make sense of what happened and why.  Now, in the quiet of the newsroom after deadline, we had a chance to reflect on those questions ourselves.  I think we understood even then that we'd never really be able to make sense of what happened.  And we already knew that our country would never be quite the same.
 
**********************
 
RFFM.org would like to express its appreciation to the members of the media who took time to contribute to this project.  They took time out of hectic schedules to add to the historical record.  Their words have been sent to the Library of Congress and will become a permanent record, documenting their 9/11 experiences.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Obama's Chicago On the Potomac: It's the Chicago Way

The Mob + the Daley Democratic Machine:  Lessons Learned And Now In Practice By Democratic Leadership In Washington, D.C.

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

AUTHOR'S NOTE:  I first wrote and posted this column in January of 2009.  Little did I know at the time my commentary about Chicago-style politics and its influence on the Obama administration would be so prophetic.  From the Louisiana Purchase and the Nebraska Corn Husker Kickback, which helped to pass the Health Care Reform legislation, Washington, D.C. has seemingly become a mirror image of how things have been done in Chicago for nearly a century.

Some of the information in this piece came from a book titled "The Outfit: The Role of Chicago's Underworld in the Shaping of Modern America" by Gus Russo.  Another great read regarding the misuse of unions and corruption is "Supermob:  How Sidney Korshak and His Criminal Associates Became America's Hidden Power Brokers" also penned by Gus Russo.

The city of Chicago is one of the few major metropolitan areas which runs away from its past at every opportunity.  Yet, indeed, the very construction of the city led to the term "underworld."  And with rampant corruption controlled by infamous individuals like "Big Jim" Colosimo, Al Capone, Paul "The Waiter" Ricca, Murray "The Camel" Humphrey and Tony "Joe Batters" Accardo, Chicago can hardly bury its past--no pun intended.

Since the turn of the 20th century, what Carl Sandburg referred to as the "City of Big Shoulders" was perhaps the center of organized crime in the United States.  Though New York had its Syndicate and Detroit had the Purple Gang, many believe true power in America's underworld was concentrated in something called the Outfit.

With the election of Barack Obama will come a great deal of history-laden baggage which will make the movie "The Godfather" seem like a Walt Disney cartoon.  Have you noticed?  It has started already.  The Rod Blagojevich story is just the tip of a giant iceberg which won't melt away any time soon.

And if you think Obama has separated himself from the political swamp which he eminated, you're wrong.

From David Axelrod (Obama's chief political handler during the election), who was nurtured on the Daley Machine, to the political organizing which Barack Obama so proudly claims a lineage, Chicago's brand of one Party politics may be a model for the Obama administration in Washington, D.C.

It is no mistake the President-elect joined Rev. Jeremiah Wright's southside Chicago church.  Obama wanted to learn the ropes of power politics and how it was played in the Windy City.  There were no better teachers than Mayor Daley and his cadre of obliging Aldermen who responded to the cracking of the political whip.  A failure to do so would quickly leave them on the outside looking in--without protection from the media, the law and any other threat which loomed on the horizon.

The question is not whether Obama will use the lessons he learned in Chicago as President.  The question is:  How much of that lesson will become the modus operandi for the Obama adminstration?  Some say it might become Chicago on the Potomac, when referring to the political mechanism Obama may surround himself with.  If so, it will be our nation's darkest nightmare come true.  And combined with the Clinton-brand of Arkansas politics, there may truly be a new day in our nation's Capitol.

Now, if you're thinking the Chicago mob is long dead and buried, you're mistaken.  In fact, some of Al Capone's descendants have significant interests in a thoroughbred race track in Cicero, Illinois--an old haunt for Chicago mobsters.  That's right, I'm talking about Scar Face, the man who controlled the Chicago underworld during the Roaring 20's and left a legacy of mobster-run activities which lasts 'til this very day.

But how did the Daley Machine take root in Chicago?  A book titled, "The Outfit: The Role of Chicago's Underworld in the Shaping of Modern America" written by Gus Russo and published in 2001 gave Americans a frigthening glimpse into the Daley Machine and how it got its start.

After Capone left power, due to his conviction on tax evasion charges in the early 1930's, it was Ricca, Humphrey and Accardo who truly called the shots in what many refer to as the Mafia.  Even "Lucky" Luciano and Meyer Lansky, originators of organized crime in New York would not make a move without consulting the Chicago Triumvirate whose innovation and power criminologists say was matched by none.

Since the hay-days of mob activity in Chicago, the city has done everything possible to shed its dark past.  But its reputation lives on--despite the efforts of the current Mayor, Richard M. Daley.  In the early century, individuals like "Big Jim" Colisimo controlled gambling and prostitution in the city.  With the advent of Prohibition, organized crime found its true calling through the sale of bootleg alcohol, combined with the pandering trade.  Added profits were topped off by a very lucrative illegal gambling racket.

After Capone's departure, the mob moved into the numbers game--which had made millions for underworld entrepreneurs in the African-American community.  Union corruption--which was master-minded by Murray "The Camel" Humphrey--brought great fortune to the Outfit as well.  Eventually, the mob moved into the illicit drug trade.  Until the early 1960's, the Chicago Outfit was ruled with an iron hand by Ricca, Humphrey and Accardo.  Though in later years, more flamboyant underworld figures, such as Sam "Mooney" Giancano and lesser players, including Joseph "Joey Doves" Aiuppa, and the Spilotro Brothers of the movie "Casino" fame, controlled organized crime in Chicago, the FBI virtually wiped out mob activity in the city--although remnants of the Outfit still exist today.

Chop shops and vending machines (poker, cigarettes, etc.) are still reported to be controlled by criminal entities.  But the glory days of the Chicago Outfit are said to be long gone.  Yet the public doesn't have to look far to find reminders of those wild times gone by.

Indeed, Chicago's current Mayor Richard M. Daley may not hold that office if not for the influence the Outfit had when it came to the election of his father, Richard J. Daley.  Perhaps the Daley link with organized crime is one of the reasons why the city does all it can to obscure Chicago's dark and corrupt history.  You will not find city-sponsored tours of famous gangland hang-outs.  Even historical landmarks, like the site of the St. Valentine's Day massacre at 2122 North Clark Street, though an empty lot, are nagging reminders of a bygone era which City Fathers would rather forget.

The Outfit played a significant role in Richard J. Daley's coming to power.  Hizzoner "The Boss" was the protégé of 11th Ward Committeeman, Hugh "Babe" Connelly whose ties to the mob go way back to the days of the "Moustache Pete's" who included prominent underworld figures like Johnny Torrio who first brought Capone to Chicago.  Daley took over Connelly's 11th Ward seat in 1947.  In league with people like 11th Ward Alderman "Big Joe" McDonough, by 1955 the Mob was grooming Daley to be Mayor and, with the help of the Outfit, his election became a reality.  For example, in the very mobbed-up 1st Ward, Daley won a plurality of votes by a staggering margin of 13,275 to 1,961.  After his election, Daley moved to solidify the Outfit's power in the city.  In 1956, Daley disbanded "Scotland Yard" an intelligence unit which had compiled reams of detailed records about Chicago crime figures.  All this was to the grief of the Chicago Crime Commission who believed Daley's election had set the city back a decade--as far as the prosecution of organized crime.

Perhaps Richard M. Daley received much of his education from his Father whose political coffers were stuffed with mob cash, according to the FBI.  And perhaps the free rein given to organized crime by the Father implanted ideas in the mind of the son regarding possible revenue expansion through alternative sources.  It's possible today's Chicago Mayor learned a very important lesson from Tony "Joe Batters" Accardo who secretly financed the Rivera Hotel in Las Vegas in 1955, the same year Richard J. Daley was elected Mayor.  For nearly a quarter of a century afterward, the Chicago mob skimmed literally hundreds of millions of dollars out of Las Vegas casinos--while operating with near impunity in Chicago, their home base.

Richie Daley had to see the unlimited amounts of cash that could be directed into city coffers through the expansion of gambling in Chicago.  And though most of what used to be underworld crime has been incorporated into white collar America, gambling becomes even more seductive, no matter what memories of Chicago's past may be dredged up in the process.

Related article:  Blagojevich, Daley, Obama: Peas From The Same Rotten Pod 
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/12/blagojevich-daley-obama-peas-from-the-same-rotten-pod.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

 

Separation of Church + State Myth: Founding Fathers' True View On Religion's Role In Government

AUTHORS' NOTE: Recently, a federal judge ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.  The following article was written over a decade ago, after months of research.  The essay details how the term "separation of church and state" has been intentionally misinterpreted by judicial activists.  This has led to the false conception of the constitutional framers' intent regarding religion's role in government and, for proof, the authors voluminously quote from the Founding Fathers themselves, including a reference to a private letter then-President Thomas Jefferson wrote using that phrase.  Since the 1940's, the term "separation of church and state" has been inappropriately manipulated by liberals, including members of the media, educators and the courts to secularize American society.  The article also cites specific court rulings which has led to our nation's departure from Natural Law and the Judeo-Christian ethic on which the United States of America was founded.

 

The Separation of Church and State Myth: The Founding Fathers: Their True View On Religion's Role In Government

by Daniel T. Zanoza + Julia Mary Zanoza

"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, I would never have placed my signature to it."

-- George Washington --

There is an ever-growing debate in America over the relationship between government and religion. In recent times, Constitutional law, or at least the modern-day interpretation thereof, has moved from one of accommodation concerning religion to a position many call hostile to the expression of personal faith in the public square. From their writings, it's clear the Founding Fathers had strong views on the subject. And though not politically correct, they were prolific in writing about God and nation. After all, 27 out of the 57 men who signed the Declaration of Independence and U. S. Constitution had the modern day equivalent of seminary degrees (extensive studies of Greek, Hebrew and Biblical text). They did not intend for America to be a theocracy, but they certainly believed the nation's laws should be tied to natural laws God created. John Adams, America's second President said, "It is religion and morality, alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."

The Constitution's framers used the Judeo-Christian ethic as a foundation for this new government. In creating America, they were beginning a unique experiment whereby everyone would be able to practice their religion freely, privately and publicly. Just as important, they also meant for Judeo-Christian principles to under-gird our laws. In another speech, Adams said, "Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free government, but all social felicity under all governments and in all combinations of human society." Many Americans don't realize how adamant the Framers were on these points. Current history books in public schools also neglect to describe how these men thoroughly and diligently studied hundreds of years of civilizations that had come and gone in order to lay down these solid principles.

Much of the debate over this issue stems from the misuse of the phrase "separation of church and state." If asked, most Americans would attribute these words to the U. S. Constitution. In reality, the term does not appear in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence or any formal United States document. The phrase was extracted from a letter written by then-President Thomas Jefferson in 1802. He was responding to correspondence from the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association.

A quote from the Danbury letter reads, "It is not to be wondered at therefore, that those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow man, (or) should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

Jefferson meant to calm their fears by quoting the First Amendment of the Constitution. He wrote them back, saying, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God ... that the legislative powers of government ... should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Jefferson himself took this opportunity to borrow from the well-noted Baptist minister, Roger Williams, who said, "...the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall." It's evident the primary intent of the phrase "wall of separation" was to protect the garden of the church from invasion by the state. (However, it must be pointed out that Thomas Jefferson did not sign the Constitution, was not present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and was out of the country during the discussion over religious freedom within the First Amendment.)

David Barton, founder and Executive Director of Wallbuilders, Inc. and a Constitutional scholar, says the wall was meant to be one-directional. For proof, he cited early court rulings such as Reynolds v. U. S., 1878. The case used Jefferson's letter to prove the one-way nature of the wall. The court ruled government was responsible to enforce civil laws according to Judeo-Christian principles.

Barton goes on to say separation of church and state pertains to denominational differences, not basic Christian mores. For example, a group could not practice human sacrifice claiming Constitutional protection. The court also ruled Mormons could not engage in bigamy or polygamy. Barton concluded by saying the wall kept the government from running the church, but it never separated religious principles from government.

Much can be learned about the intent of the Constitutional framers by a review of the Northwest Ordinance. The draft was prepared by Thomas Jefferson. It was originally approved by Congress July 13, 1787, and re-passed by the Founding Fathers following the U. S. Constitution's ratification. On August 7, 1789, President George Washington signed it into law during the same time Congress was laying down the First Amendment. Article III of this Ordinance states, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged."

On April 30, 1802, President Jefferson signed the enabling act for Ohio to join the union which said this newest state must agree with the Northwest Ordinance. If Jefferson believed there was a distinct wall of separation between church and state, he would not have ratified this act just months after his letter to the Danbury Baptist group.

Again, it is clear that the Supreme Court, which included men who had created and signed the Constitution, looked upon religious principles as the moral foundation of this early government. When they spoke of religion, it appears they were referring to sects or denominations. This notion is bolstered by the words of Samuel Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Supreme Court Justice, who said "Religion is of general and public concern and on its proper support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty."

What has led to the modern-day, secular view of the U. S. Constitution? Many people assert the document is subject to change according to cultural whim. However, the amendment process was to be the means by which the Constitution was to undergo this change. Judicial activists have circumvented this procedure, creating laws instead of interpreting them.

The reinterpretation of the religious clauses of the First Amendment can be traced to a court decision in the 1920's, but the roots of this new legal perspective date back to the turn of the century. The humanistic teachings of Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud cannot be overlooked in the new role of religion in American culture. Subsequently, the beliefs which a society holds dear are reflected in its laws. But some say the shift to a non-theistic translation of the Constitution was begun by a cultural elite that shared little of the values held by the general populace.

Systematically, with the aid of judicial activism, religion has been deleted from the public square. Faith-based education was the first victim of this rush to government-sponsored secularism. One of the earliest court rulings pertaining to religion within the establishment clause, in this new Constitutional vision, occurred in the Supreme Court case, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. For the first time, Jefferson's words were used in a totally unique context. By a 5-4 vote, the nations highest court ruled, "From the period of the early settlers, the American people believed that individual religious liberty could be best achieved by a government that was stripped of all power to tax, to support or otherwise to assist any or all religions." Legal scholars have noted this case used zero precedents, therefore abandoning the time-tested practice of common law. In contrast, the aforementioned case of Reynolds v. U. S. used Jefferson's writings concerning church and state to prove quite the opposite. Hence, the foundation was now laid for the assault on the principles held so deeply by the Founding Fathers.

In 1958, a Supreme Court Justice demonstrated prophetic insight in giving his dissenting opinion concerning the case Baer v. Kolmorgen. He warned that the Court must be careful in its usage of the term "separation of church and state" because the public would believe those words appeared within the body of the Constitution. In the future, there might be some who would falsely attribute the phrase to the document itself. This judge truly had a vision of what was to come.

Perhaps the most significant landmark Supreme Court decision on religion and education was Engel v. Vitale, 1962. The court said that a verbal prayer in school is unconstitutional even if it is both voluntary and denominationally neutral. The ruling opened the legal floodgates in the rush to remove religion from public schools. This case had a far-reaching effect on the culture of an entire nation as well.

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in a classroom. The court used this rationale: If the Commandments are present in the classroom, someone might read them. If someone reads them, they might then act accordingly. And if they act accordingly, this violates the constitutional wall between state and religion.

These and other monumental court decisions were a result of an ever-growing barrier between church and state which, in turn, changed the way a nation lived. Rulings on issues such as abortion and pornography became possible in this atmosphere of moral relativism. Constitutional revisionists exclude morality from the legal equation. The state itself becomes the final arbiter between right and wrong.

However, it is evident the Founding Fathers felt a need to prescribe to a higher level of virtue. It can be argued that the reason the United States has thrived stems from the Framers reverence for something beyond humanity.

The false perception of the Constitutional framers as non-religious continues. This social and legal parallax is reinforced among the nation’s youth. A videotape entitled "Myths America," shown in some public schools, described the Founding Fathers as atheists who saw religion playing little or no role in their vision of a democratic republic. It also must be noted that prior to World War II, speeches such as George Washington's farewell address, which was heavy in references to God and government, appeared in most American textbooks. However, from the 1940's onward, his commentary has been deleted from history texts, helping to create a radically altered secular perception of the Founders.

It is safe to say modern America is no longer looked upon as a Christian nation by many people. The age-old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg, is entirely applicable in the discussion of religion and American government and, to a greater extent, American culture. It can be reasonably asserted that the purely secular perception of the law has revamped American society. It can be argued that this non-theistic culture is a direct result of post-modernisms influence on the United States judiciary, a perfect example of cause and effect.

Today, the very nature of law prohibits cases from being argued solely by looking at the intent of the nation's Founders. Some, who hold a constructionist view of law, admit that in the 1960's, '70s and early '80s, cases were tried poorly by conservative jurists, leading to many of the rulings handed down by state and federal courts.

The American social landscape bears little resemblance to the late 18th century. The country is no longer a melting pot, instead succumbing to the philosophy of multiculturalism which divided Americans along racial, ethnic and other cultural lines. Judicial activism has helped delete the homogenous nature of society by using the courts to advance this way of thinking.

The Founding Fathers intent was clear. They saw natural law as a fundamental component of a democratic republic. For over 150 years, the courts not only supported this vision, but also made religious liberty an integral factor in the interpretation of law. But the ever-narrowing approach to religious rights, guaranteed by the First Amendment, has had profound results. Legal revisionism has distorted a sacred legacy.

In his farewell speech, George Washington stated, "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens." Our first President also said, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

by Daniel T. Zanoza + Julia Mary Zanoza

"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, I would never have placed my signature to it."

-- George Washington --

There is an ever-growing debate in America over the relationship between government and religion. In recent times, Constitutional law, or at least the modern-day interpretation thereof, has moved from one of accommodation concerning religion to a position many call hostile to the expression of personal faith in the public square. From their writings, it's clear the Founding Fathers had strong views on the subject. And though not politically correct, they were prolific in writing about God and nation. After all, 27 out of the 57 men who signed the Declaration of Independence and U. S. Constitution had the modern day equivalent of seminary degrees (extensive studies of Greek, Hebrew and Biblical text). They did not intend for America to be a theocracy, but they certainly believed the nation's laws should be tied to natural laws God created. John Adams, America's second President said, "It is religion and morality, alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."

The Constitution's framers used the Judeo-Christian ethic as a foundation for this new government. In creating America, they were beginning a unique experiment whereby everyone would be able to practice their religion freely, privately and publicly. Just as important, they also meant for Judeo-Christian principles to under-gird our laws. In another speech, Adams said, "Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free government, but all social felicity under all governments and in all combinations of human society." Many Americans don't realize how adamant the Framers were on these points. Current history books in public schools also neglect to describe how these men thoroughly and diligently studied hundreds of years of civilizations that had come and gone in order to lay down these solid principles.

Much of the debate over this issue stems from the misuse of the phrase "separation of church and state." If asked, most Americans would attribute these words to the U. S. Constitution. In reality, the term does not appear in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence or any formal United States document. The phrase was extracted from a letter written by then-President Thomas Jefferson in 1802. He was responding to correspondence from the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association.

A quote from the Danbury letter reads, "It is not to be wondered at therefore, that those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow man, (or) should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

Jefferson meant to calm their fears by quoting the First Amendment of the Constitution. He wrote them back, saying, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God ... that the legislative powers of government ... should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Jefferson himself took this opportunity to borrow from the well-noted Baptist minister, Roger Williams, who said, "...the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall." It's evident the primary intent of the phrase "wall of separation" was to protect the garden of the church from invasion by the state. (However, it must be pointed out that Thomas Jefferson did not sign the Constitution, was not present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and was out of the country during the discussion over religious freedom within the First Amendment.)

David Barton, founder and Executive Director of Wallbuilders, Inc. and a Constitutional scholar, says the wall was meant to be one-directional. For proof, he cited early court rulings such as Reynolds v. U. S., 1878. The case used Jefferson's letter to prove the one-way nature of the wall. The court ruled government was responsible to enforce civil laws according to Judeo-Christian principles.

Barton goes on to say separation of church and state pertains to denominational differences, not basic Christian mores. For example, a group could not practice human sacrifice claiming Constitutional protection. The court also ruled Mormons could not engage in bigamy or polygamy. Barton concluded by saying the wall kept the government from running the church, but it never separated religious principles from government.

Much can be learned about the intent of the Constitutional framers by a review of the Northwest Ordinance. The draft was prepared by Thomas Jefferson. It was originally approved by Congress July 13, 1787, and re-passed by the Founding Fathers following the U. S. Constitution's ratification. On August 7, 1789, President George Washington signed it into law during the same time Congress was laying down the First Amendment. Article III of this Ordinance states, "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged."

On April 30, 1802, President Jefferson signed the enabling act for Ohio to join the union which said this newest state must agree with the Northwest Ordinance. If Jefferson believed there was a distinct wall of separation between church and state, he would not have ratified this act just months after his letter to the Danbury Baptist group.

Again, it is clear that the Supreme Court, which included men who had created and signed the Constitution, looked upon religious principles as the moral foundation of this early government. When they spoke of religion, it appears they were referring to sects or denominations. This notion is bolstered by the words of Samuel Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Supreme Court Justice, who said "Religion is of general and public concern and on its proper support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty."

What has led to the modern-day, secular view of the U. S. Constitution? Many people assert the document is subject to change according to cultural whim. However, the amendment process was to be the means by which the Constitution was to undergo this change. Judicial activists have circumvented this procedure, creating laws instead of interpreting them.

The reinterpretation of the religious clauses of the First Amendment can be traced to a court decision in the 1920's, but the roots of this new legal perspective date back to the turn of the century. The humanistic teachings of Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud cannot be overlooked in the new role of religion in American culture. Subsequently, the beliefs which a society holds dear are reflected in its laws. But some say the shift to a non-theistic translation of the Constitution was begun by a cultural elite that shared little of the values held by the general populace.

Systematically, with the aid of judicial activism, religion has been deleted from the public square. Faith-based education was the first victim of this rush to government-sponsored secularism. One of the earliest court rulings pertaining to religion within the establishment clause, in this new Constitutional vision, occurred in the Supreme Court case, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. For the first time, Jefferson's words were used in a totally unique context. By a 5-4 vote, the nations highest court ruled, "From the period of the early settlers, the American people believed that individual religious liberty could be best achieved by a government that was stripped of all power to tax, to support or otherwise to assist any or all religions." Legal scholars have noted this case used zero precedents, therefore abandoning the time-tested practice of common law. In contrast, the aforementioned case of Reynolds v. U. S. used Jefferson's writings concerning church and state to prove quite the opposite. Hence, the foundation was now laid for the assault on the principles held so deeply by the Founding Fathers.

In 1958, a Supreme Court Justice demonstrated prophetic insight in giving his dissenting opinion concerning the case Baer v. Kolmorgen. He warned that the Court must be careful in its usage of the term "separation of church and state" because the public would believe those words appeared within the body of the Constitution. In the future, there might be some who would falsely attribute the phrase to the document itself. This judge truly had a vision of what was to come.

Perhaps the most significant landmark Supreme Court decision on religion and education was Engel v. Vitale, 1962. The court said that a verbal prayer in school is unconstitutional even if it is both voluntary and denominationally neutral. The ruling opened the legal floodgates in the rush to remove religion from public schools. This case had a far-reaching effect on the culture of an entire nation as well.

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in a classroom. The court used this rationale: If the Commandments are present in the classroom, someone might read them. If someone reads them, they might then act accordingly. And if they act accordingly, this violates the constitutional wall between state and religion.

These and other monumental court decisions were a result of an ever-growing barrier between church and state which, in turn, changed the way a nation lived. Rulings on issues such as abortion and pornography became possible in this atmosphere of moral relativism. Constitutional revisionists exclude morality from the legal equation. The state itself becomes the final arbiter between right and wrong.

However, it is evident the Founding Fathers felt a need to prescribe to a higher level of virtue. It can be argued that the reason the United States has thrived stems from the Framers reverence for something beyond humanity.

The false perception of the Constitutional framers as non-religious continues. This social and legal parallax is reinforced among the nation’s youth. A videotape entitled "Myths America," shown in some public schools, described the Founding Fathers as atheists who saw religion playing little or no role in their vision of a democratic republic. It also must be noted that prior to World War II, speeches such as George Washington's farewell address, which was heavy in references to God and government, appeared in most American textbooks. However, from the 1940's onward, his commentary has been deleted from history texts, helping to create a radically altered secular perception of the Founders.

It is safe to say modern America is no longer looked upon as a Christian nation by many people. The age-old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg, is entirely applicable in the discussion of religion and American government and, to a greater extent, American culture. It can be reasonably asserted that the purely secular perception of the law has revamped American society. It can be argued that this non-theistic culture is a direct result of post-modernisms influence on the United States judiciary, a perfect example of cause and effect.

Today, the very nature of law prohibits cases from being argued solely by looking at the intent of the nation's Founders. Some, who hold a constructionist view of law, admit that in the 1960's, '70s and early '80s, cases were tried poorly by conservative jurists, leading to many of the rulings handed down by state and federal courts.

The American social landscape bears little resemblance to the late 18th century. The country is no longer a melting pot, instead succumbing to the philosophy of multiculturalism which divided Americans along racial, ethnic and other cultural lines. Judicial activism has helped delete the homogenous nature of society by using the courts to advance this way of thinking.

The Founding Fathers intent was clear. They saw natural law as a fundamental component of a democratic republic. For over 150 years, the courts not only supported this vision, but also made religious liberty an integral factor in the interpretation of law. But the ever-narrowing approach to religious rights, guaranteed by the First Amendment, has had profound results. Legal revisionism has distorted a sacred legacy.

In his farewell speech, George Washington stated, "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens." Our first President also said, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Health Care Reform: Striking Parallels Between Far Left's Vision for U.S. and former USSR's 1936 Constitution

Editor's Note:  Ed Tait is the founder of www.edtait.com, a blog dedicated to sharing information about the United States, a unique and grand experiment, which was founded by great men.  On his website, Tait defines what Ronald Reagan referred to as "The Shining City On A Hill" whereby rights are endowed to men from their Creator, not government.  Tait highlights parallels to America's departure from the vision of the Founding Fathers and rights provided to citizens of the former USSR.  Tait's posting below contains excerpts from the former Soviet Union's Constitution of 1936.  The similarities between the former Soviet Union's Constitution--which came from the evil minds of Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky and other Communists--mirror some of the values held today by America's far left and should send a chill down the spine of all who cherish freedom.

 

Following is the full text of Section X of the former Soviet Union's Constitution of 1936

1936 CONSTITUTION OF THE USSR

Adopted December 1936

CHAPTER X

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS

ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance With its quantity and quality.

The right to work is ensured by the socialist organization of the national economy, the steady growth of the productive forces of Soviet society, the elimination of the possibility of economic crises, and the abolition of unemployment.

ARTICLE 119. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to rest and leisure. The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the working people.

ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.

ARTICLE 121. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native language, and by the organization in the factories, state farms, machine and tractor stations and collective farms of free vocational, technical and agronomic training for the working people.

ARTICLE 122. Women in the U.S.S.R. are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life. The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured to women by granting them an equal right with men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, and by state protection of the interests of mother and child, prematernity and maternity leave with full pay, and the provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens.

ARTICLE 123. Equality of rights of citizens of the U.S.S.R., irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.

ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

1. freedom of speech;
2. freedom of the press;
3. freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
4. freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

ARTICLE 126. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to develop the organizational initiative and political activity of the masses of the people, citizens of the U.S.S.R. are ensured the right to unite in public organizations–trade unions, cooperative associations, youth organizations,’ sport and defense organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies; and the most active and politically most conscious citizens in the ranks of the working class and other sections of the working people unite in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), which is the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system and is the leading core of all organizations of the working people, both public and state.

ARTICLE 127. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No person may be placed under arrest except by decision of a court or with the sanction of a procurator.

ARTICLE 128. The inviolability of the homes of citizens and privacy of correspondence are protected by law.

ARTICLE 129. The U.S.S.R. affords the right of asylum to foreign citizens persecuted for defending the interests of the working people, or for their scientific activities, or for their struggle for national liberation.

ARTICLE 130. It is the duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R. to abide by the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to observe the laws, to maintain labor discipline, honestly to perform public duties, and to respect the rules of socialist intercourse.

ARTICLE 131. It is the duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R. to safeguard and strengthen public, socialist property as the sacred and inviolable foundation of the Soviet system, as the source of the wealth and might of the country, as the source of the prosperous and cultured life of all the working people.

Persons committing offenses against public, socialist property are enemies of the people.

ARTICLE 132. Universal military service is law. Military service in the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army is an honorable duty of the citizens of the U.S.S.R.

ARTICLE 133. To defend the fatherland is the sacred duty of every citizen of the U.S.S.R. Treason to the country–violation of the oath of allegiance, desertion to the enemy, impairing the military power of the state, espionage is punishable with all the severity of the law as the most heinous of crimes.

******

 

In part, Tait writes:

Do you notice the difference, between the Constitution written by the Founders and this one…notice that the Founders began by making it clear that rights did not flow from government, they were endowed by the Creator….

And notice the similarities to the FDR attempt in America for a ‘Second Bill of Rights’ and the similarity to what the Progressives want…

“Fundamental change”…fear it, fight against it…fight to force your representatives in Washington to honour the Constitution…

What a striking difference…what the Creator has given, will not be taken away, regardless the attempts of government…however rights offered by government can and will be taken away based on the will of those currently in power…of course, for the benefit of the collective…

Courtesy www.edtait.com

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Hope and Change Or A Fight For The American Dream And The Battle Against Oppression

An Essay by the Rev. Nancy Cahalan

 

The Rev. Nancy Cahalan is a contributor to RFFM.org.  Cahalan is a Pastor who resides in southern Illinois.

 

    In 1976, I graduated high school.  Because that year was our nation's bicentennial year, NBC ran an essay contest for graduating seniors.  The title of the essay was "What Is An American?"  I entered that contest and became one of the finalists.

    I have been thinking about that essay lately and how things have changed in this country in the 30 some years since I graduated high school.  The America that I see today is nothing like the America I saw then.  The America that I saw then was an America whose government was actually by the people and for the people.  Today our government is voted for by the people, but it does not represent the people.  It represents a select few special interests and the egos of those who are supposed to have the good of the people first and foremost in their hearts and minds, not what kind of deal they can make for themselves.  Back room, locked door deals are NOT the way that governing is to happen here in America.  Corruption running rampantly and blatantly, for the whole world to see, is NOT how things should be.

    Well, they will say, you are just being naive.  You just don't understand how politics work, they will say.  OK.  Maybe I am naive and don't understand how THEIR politics work.  But I do know much about being honest, about following the law, about listening to others--even when what they have to say may not be pleasing to my ears, about leading a group of people and having to put my own ego and wants on the back burner in deference to what those whom I am leading say they want.  I am a pastor.  As such, I do have to walk a very fine line where my words and my actions are concerned.  So, too should our elected officials.

    Most of the American people do not want the present form of health care take over that is being crafted to be foisted upon them--whether they want it or not.  They do not want it because they can see the disaster that awaits them and future generations if it becomes law.  They can see the increased costs and the decreased access to care.  They can see that their ability to choose will be taken from them.

    The present president, Barack Obama, was elected without anyone finding out very much about who he was or what he really believed.  Obama himself told us that we were to judge him based on those with whom he kept company.  He keeps company with socialists, communists, people who blow up government buildings and wish they could blow up more government buildings.  Obama follows the writings of a man, Saul Alinsky, who was once mentored by Al Capone's enforcer, Frank Nitti, whom Alinsky called "the Professor" and of whom Alinsky became a student.

 

    We are told that Mr. Obama is brilliant and yet we are not given access to his school transcripts.  I hear over and over again about what a great speaker he is.  I don't see it.  When he does not have a teleprompter in front of him, he hems and haws.  His speaking is full of "ums" and "uhs".  To me, that is NOT a good speaker.  A good speaker is one who can speak without all those little annoying non-words, whose words flow freely and who actually shows that he or she has a good grasp of the facts.  Mr. Obama has shown, time and again, that he does not even have that (i.e., Obama's gaffe:  57 states and two more to go).

    I believe that if the America that was birthed in 1776, that hundreds of thousands of people have fought and died to defend, of which millions have sacrificed to become a part, the country to which Ronald Reagan referred to as the "shining city on a hill" is to survive, if America is to remain a bastion of freedom, then "We the People" are going to have to continue to fight back with everything that we have.

 

    We are, once again, a people under tyranny, only, sadly, this time it is a tyranny of our own making.  We have allowed these corrupt officials to take over with barely a whimper on our part.  I am as guilty as anyone else in thinking that there was not much I could do to stop what was happening.  But there is plenty that we can all do.  We just have to 'not grow weary in doing good' as the Bible urges us.  Whether you believe in the Bible or not, if you believe in this country, on the principles on which it was founded, in the Constitution as it was written--not as some would like to rewrite it, you must not grow weary in this fight.  It is a fight and it is one we must win.

 

    We must defeat those who believe that sharing the wealth is the way of the future for everyone, except themselves.  (Note that the Obamas, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and company have yet to share any of their wealth with us.)  We must defeat those who think that freedom is an outdated concept that doesn't work.  We must defeat those who think that some government bureaucrat knows how we should live our lives better than we do.  We must defeat those who will change America from the land of the free and the home of the brave to the land of the cowed and the home of the oppressed.  WE MUST! 

Another article by NANCY CAHALAN: 

Obama With The Sound Off: The Face Of An Angry Man? http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/09/obama-with-the-sound-off-the-face-of-an-angry-man-.html

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]   

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]   

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Arlington Natl. Cemetery's Old Guard: Not All of Washington, D.C. Shut Down During Snow Storm by Lyle J. Rapacki, PhD.

EDITOR'S NOTE:  Lyle J Rapacki is a frequent contributor to RFFM.org.  Rapacki is an independent intelligence analyst who receives and disseminates critical intelligence and policy information for and to law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security officials and operatives, and government and community leaders.  He is the author of dozens of white papers, bulletins and briefings, and is frequently called on to share his expertise with public and private security directors and organizations.

Not all of Washington, D.C. was shut-down recently because of snow.  At the Tomb of the Unknowns, members of "The Old Guard" continued to walk post; just like they have every day, every night, during rain, snow, freeze, and even during a hurricane a couple of years ago.  They never stopped walking, they never stopped their vigil, they never stopped honoring and remembering.
 
Years ago, I was privileged to be present during the "Changing of the Watch" at midnight.  Virtually no one was around.  It was pitch black and cold.  A slight breeze with a drizzle was my companion, along with my escort.  But virtually, that was all who were present, except "The Old Guard."  They noticed me only out of vigilance, and I have no doubt they would have challenged me if I had approached The Tomb.  Otherwise, they walked, they never stopped their vigil, they never stopped honoring and remembering.
 
I guess America is a strange land to many across the world.  Americans are a strange people, too.  We are different.  We detest war, but our military are the first on shore when freedom is being strangled and tyranny is raising it's demonic head.  We are flush with many fine toys and material items, but we are the first to share these, anywhere in the world, when storms and calamities come to a country and people, and wipe-out all they own.  We love to laugh and sing and have a good time, and we export the same to all corners of the earth to help people everywhere lighten their load - even if briefly.  There is much we have, and much we extend to others.
 
But the reverence for our brave and selfless "keepers of the flame of freedom," those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, in the line-of-duty, is one example all other countries have imitated, and in which you never hear a despairing word.
 
May you ponder the cost our military men and women bear without truly griping.  May you imagine the hardship, loneliness, separation from loved ones and familiar surroundings our military endures in far away lands.  May you think, for just a moment, our fragile freedom is protected, in part, by some kids who just a year or two ago were drag racing down the street, and today race across a "kill zone" praying to be faster than ever.  
 
The dedicated members of "The Old Guard" acknowledge the aforesaid, and more, and consider it an honor to walk, and continue their vigil, and never stop honoring or remembering all who paid the ultimate price for freedom.  They march in front of this hallowed tomb for us, too. 

How you can help RFFM.org inform America about political and social issues.
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2010/01/rffmorg-needs-your-help.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]   

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

9/11 Remembrances

9/11 -- WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN + WE MUST ALWAYS REMEMBER

Every generation can recall an event that is collectively seared into the mind of a nation and its people.  From the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 to the assassination of John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963 and now including that horrible day on Sept. 11, 2001, individuals can tell you where they were, what they were doing and the thoughts that were permanently etched into their minds on those days.  The most mundane recollections became riveting stories of the human experience, designed to be filed away in an emotional time capsule which will never be lost. 

In 2006, RFFM.org commemorated the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy by interviewing five members of the local and national media.  Chicago area journalists shared their recollections of 9/11 five years after the devastating attacks which took the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children in New York, Washington, D.C. and in a rural field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Touching, riveting and emotional--these individuals expose their inner feelings about one more day that will live in American infamy. Read the thoughts of Charlie Wojciechowski--NBC 5 Chicago; Phil Ponce--host, Chicago Tonight WTTW (PBS); Chuck Goudie--ABC 7 Chicago; Mike Flannery--CBS 2 Chicago; and Michael J. Waters--publisher and editor, Daily Southtown (now called the Southtown Star).

RFFM.org thought it appropriate to once again post these poignant recollections of a day that truly will never be forgotten.

 

********************** 

Charlie Wojciechowski, reporter, NBC 5 Chicago 
 
It was the first thing I saw when I switched on the TV that morning, live video of the second plane exploding as it sliced into the World Trade Center.  Matt Lauer and Katie Couric had been talking about what had, at first, seemed a terrible accident.  Then came the sinking feeling that it was not, and that the world would change forever.
 
Before I could reach for my toothbrush, the phone rang.  It was Angie Rosemond, my assignment editor.  In a calm and measured voice she told me to get to the Federal Building.  My crew would meet me there.  That started a day that none of us will ever forget.  The memories remain in the form of surreal images: standing with dozens of others as we watched the towers collapse on the monitors inside our live truck; waiting in a silent O'Hare parking lot, the staging area closest to then grounded airport; looking up at the Sears Tower, wondering if we would be next.
 
It was a frightening reality that to this day shapes thoughts, opinions and reactions to world events and one that is seared into our collective memory.
 
********************** 
 
Phil Ponce, Host, “Chicago Tonight” WTTW -- Channel 11

I woke up that morning to follow my usual routine of having a cup of coffee at the kitchen table while reading the morning papers.  Normally I never watch morning television while reading.  For some reason, though, I turned on “Good Morning America.”  I recall that Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer were anchoring.  A few minutes after I tuned in, one of them interjected that there was a report that a small plane had crashed into one of the towers at the World Trade Center and that they would have more information as it became available.

Soon afterwards, they had a live picture of the towers and while information about the first incident was coming in, I saw the second plane go into the second tower as it happened in real time.  I could barely believe what I had just seen on my little counter-top TV set and at first it almost didn’t register.  Then Charlie Gibson said something like, “We’re under attack.”  That’s when it clicked.  I felt like someone had kicked me in the stomach.  And when the towers fell, I felt a mixture of revulsion, grief and anger.

At some point during all this I got a phone call from one of our producers.  She was the first one I talked to (my wife was out of town).  I was glad the producer called.  I needed another human being to connect with—even if it was just on the phone.  Later there were more phone calls; from other colleagues about how to fashion a program that night.  And my children called from college needing to process the events with their parents.  They had questions.  Why would somebody do this?  Are we safe?  Where was God in all this?  Good questions then.  Good questions now.

********************** 
 
Chuck Goudie, reporter, ABC 7 Chicago 
 
The American flags did it for me.  There were hundreds of them hung from expressway overpasses, gas stations, truck windows and car antennas within hours of the attack. It was reflex for so many people after their turf was attacked. Hang the red white and blue.

Producer Ann Pistone, cameraman Steve Erwin and I lost count of how many flags we saw on the interstate between Chicago and Manhattan that devastating day. We had left the Loop a few hours after the assault, realizing there would be no flights to get us there. We drove all day and night watching the flags fly by. Some were strung up, others were in the hands of people who must have felt compelled to do something to express their heartache, dismay and helplessness.
 
Except for necessities we never stopped that day, aiming at ground zero as if it was the end of a tunnel. The corridor of flags gave me personal comfort and certainty that day, that despite the darkness, there was light and strength. Even while standing at ground zero a few hours later, breathing the remains of the world trade center, the American flags that guided our way to lower Manhattan made it clear that we as a nation would survive.

Five years later, it seems most of the flags have been packed away...until the next time.
 
********************** 
 
Mike Flannery, reporter, CBS 2 Chicago 
 
I remember remarking on the beautiful morning sunshine as I walked into a barber shop.  Otto had opened early to accommodate my need for a pre-work appointment.  We were the only ones in the shop.  He put some classical music on the sound system, made us some coffee and went to work trimming and clipping.  At some point, the telephone rang.  It was Otto’s wife.
 
Without putting the phone down, and without saying anything to me, he hurried over to turn on a TV.  We saw a live picture of both towers burning, then the broadcast cut away to replay video tape of a large passenger jet slamming into the second building. Otto said something in German to his wife, hung up, then slumped into a chair.  We sat in stunned silence.
 
I was having trouble wrapping my mind around what I was watching.  This was an act of evil mass-murder, conceived and executed by some very smart people. My first suspects:  “Death-to-America” Islamists, never mind that I’d been wrong in the same surmise after the Oklahoma City bombing.
 
I called the office as I raced the 4-5 blocks to get there.  They were already deploying reporters and camera crews, though it was unclear when we would ever get on the air, since CBS was going wall-to-wall with reports from New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.  I was sent to the Sears Tower, in time to see nervous workers heading home, perhaps a dozen stopping to ask me if what they’d heard was true … that another hijacked plane was still aloft and headed for the Loop.  I said what I knew: we could not determine the source of that rumor and government officials told us they thought it was untrue.
 
In a short time, no planes of any kind were visible.  The empty sky above the Loop’s almost empty-streets was eerie.  The eventual appearance of military fighter jets flying CAP (Combat Air Patrol) made it even eerier.
 
********************** 
 
Michael J. Waters, publisher and editor, Daily Southtown 
 
I was driving to the newspaper office when I tuned in WBBM Newsradio.  The live feeds from New York reported a shocking story -- that two planes had crashed into the World Trade Center towers in what appeared to be deliberate acts.  I was desperate to get to work to get the newsroom rolling on the story; the 30-minute drive seemed to take forever.
 
I was the first editor in the newsroom that morning.  I started calling reporters and other editors on their cell phones to either urge them to get into the office as quickly as possible or get them into the field at locations such as the Sears Tower.  Employees from throughout the building--including our advertising, circulation and accounting departments--gathered in clusters in stunned silence around the TVs mounted on the newsroom walls to watch the news reports.  Some wiped away tears as they watched the shocking images of the crumbling towers.
 
As more editors arrived to help coordinate our coverage, we quickly decided that we wanted to put out an extra edition.  It wasn't difficult to convince our publisher that this story was important enough to justify the Daily Southtown's first extra since the death of (Chicago Mayor) Harold Washington 14 years earlier.  The next few hours were a blur as the newsroom compiled the report and we scrambled to get the extra printed and distributed.
 
It wasn't until late that night, when the Sept. 12 newspaper had been put to bed, that the emotions of the day started to hit me.  We'd spent all day trying to help our readers make sense of what happened and why.  Now, in the quiet of the newsroom after deadline, we had a chance to reflect on those questions ourselves.  I think we understood even then that we'd never really be able to make sense of what happened.  And we already knew that our country would never be quite the same.
 
**********************
 
RFFM.org would like to express its appreciation to the members of the media who took time to contribute to this project.  They took time out of hectic schedules to add to the historical record.  Their words will be sent to the Library of Congress and will become a permanent record, documenting their 9/11 experiences.

RFFM.org encourages its readers to post their recollections of 9/11 in the comment section. 
 
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]  

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.

Bush Victim of 9/11 and Katrina: He Should Not Take the Blame for Acts of God and Devil

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

 

 

According to some political operatives and willing members of the dominant media, the nation has a President who is extraordinarily inept.  Yet other critics say George W. Bush is evil beyond description.  But conventional wisdom among the President's detractors implies Bush is both of these things, inept and evil, to a point never before seen in world history.  According to the far left, Bush, a bumbling fool, is one of the great evil masterminds of our times.  However, no one has ever accused liberals of basing their views on logic or truth.

 

If this sounds extreme, it is.  To those who hate the President of the United States with a burning passion, Bush is both a fool and a genius.  I guess he's a foolish genius and this perception rings true among millions of American left-wingers.

 

Now why am I saying the left is calling Bush an idiot and an evil mastermind?  Well, read on.  Concerning the Katrina disaster and the tragedy of Sept. 11th, 2001, it is clear some believe one man is responsible for both events and that man is George Bush.  Many, including the press, have blamed the President for the suffering which followed one of the most devastating hurricanes to ever hit the shores of North America.

 

  And, on an even more ridiculous note, there are a considerable number of mentally-challenged partisans who believe George Bush actually plotted the evil which took place on 9/11.  Of course, even mentioning such allegations gives these irresponsible notions undeserved credibility.  Therefore, this conspiracy theory contrived in lunacy will not get further mention in this column.  Incredibly, there is even a website devoted to this madness.

 

To take the incredible Bush-bashing even further, the President of the United States was blamed for an act of God which some scientists say occurs only once in a century.  Katrina decimated the Gulf Coast and caused damage totaling in the hundreds of billions of dollars.  Charges were levied, claiming federal organizations designed to meet disasters were unprepared and not up to the task at hand.

 

However, it is clear Katrina was a task no one was or could have been prepared for.  Yet "gotcha" politics and a press driven by conflict felt it was necessary to place blame--so it did.

 

  The truth of the matter is:  New Orleans, a city with a Democratic Mayor, located in a state run by a Democratic Governor, was lagging behind neighboring states in preparation for Katrina and is still lagging behind its Gulf Coast neighbors as far as recovery.  For example, years ago, Mississippi officials proudly proclaimed that state had been cleared of the debris which resulted from Katrina's onslaught.  Yet New Orleans still is dealing with tons of rubble and progress is being made ever so slowly.  The New Orleans recovery project has been stifled by a racially insensitive Mayor who told his constituents New Orleans should be a chocolate city and a former Democratic Governor who fought with the New Orleans Mayor before, during and after the Hurricane struck.  Yet Americans are surprised Louisiana's response to Katrina has been so woeful in many ways.  From rampant fraud to marauding policemen to criminal acts of inhumanity, it was all there for the world to see.  But, somehow, it was all Bush's fault.

 

Hurricane Katrina was indeed the perfect storm of ineptitude and the federal government was, in some miraculous way, supposed to sweep in and right the wrongs politicians took decades to construct. 

 

Did FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) perform like a well-oiled machine right after the Hurricane departed the Gulf Coast region?  Certainly not.  But it is a safe bet to say no organization could have been prepared for a natural disaster of that magnitude.  Or maybe, just maybe, building a city on an estuary at the mouth of one of the world's major rivers isn't exactly a good idea.  However, we have made history.  According to some, George Bush is responsible for Katrina--which was an act of God; and 9/11--which was an act inspired by the Devil himself.  That's quite a résumé for a man who some say is the closest thing to a functioning illiterate.

 

Captions for photos:

Top:  President George W. Bush

Middle:  Second plane about to strike World Trade Center

Bottom:  Flooding after Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans

 

* A version of this column was first posted in October 2006.

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]  

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.

In WWII it was called treason: Today it's called freedom of the press

Commentary by Daniel Zanoza

For a moment, let's flashback to a hypothetical conversation being held on May 15, 1944.  We break in on a phone conference between the Roosevelt administration and a managing editor of the New York Times.  The White House is pleading with the nation's so-called "newspaper of record" not to publish some information leaked to the publication regarding the June 5th 1944 planned invasion of Hitler's Fortress Europe/Normandy.  The White House representative contends releasing the story will cost the lives of thousands of Allied soldiers.  The managing editor of the New York Times responds by saying, it's in the best interest of the public to know and on June 1st publishes the top secret story.  The invasion does not take place on June 5th because of bad weather in the English Channel and instead goes forward on June 6th.  As a result of the New York Times piece, American troops and their allies are thrown back into the sea and Hitler's death machine on the European Continent is allowed to continue for many years into the future.  As a result, instead of six million Jews being killed in places like Auschwitz, the final number totals 10 million.  Also, as many as eight million others, who languish in Nazi concentration camps, see their demise.  Add to this, the expanded numbers of Allied troops who will die because of the war's extension.  Millions of civilians will also perish because the war has been prolonged.  Remember, this all occurs because the New York Times contended Americans had the right to know about the secret plans concerning the United States war against fascism.
 
Of course, such a scenario would have never taken place in 1944 America.  The Roosevelt administration would not have pleaded with any publication regarding the release of top secret military plans to defeat the nation's enemy.  The New York Times building would have been closed down, their files would have been confiscated and the offices would have been surrounded by military police--while the newspaper's publishers would have been facing charges of treason.
 
Let's fast forward to the present.  The United States is in a life and death struggle with a group of fanatics who desire to kill everyone in the world who do not share their religious beliefs.  Their targets include men, women and children.  These terrorists receive funding through a worldwide banking system which makes available millions of dollars to accomplish their goals at the touch of a keyboard.
 
Such was the case concerning a classified program initiated by the U.S. Treasury Department which prevented groups like Al Qaeda for profiting from such transactions.  The intelligence program was successful.  Select members of both political parties were aware of the strategy and the program broke no laws.  However, after considering the pleadings of the Bush administration, the New York Times decided to run with the story which detailed the secret and highly successful operation.  Hence, the covert and legal tool which lead to the arrest of at least one major Al Qaeda operative and numerous other players in the terrorist organization is no longer secret.  Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times, conveniently hides behind the alleged "public's best interest," argument to justify his newspaper's publication of the article.  However, common sense makes one wonder how such a story can be considered in the public's best interest, if it jeopardizes the lives of the people it is meant to inform.
 
Thankfully, there is sanity in our country today.  U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is calling for an investigation of the New York Times, citing the nation's security was impacted by the newspaper's actions.  The New York Times could be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act, according to some legal experts.  "The New York Times are recidivists," said King, in reference to another New York Times story which revealed a National Security Agency (NSA) program that monitored phone calls made in the U.S. to possible terrorists overseas.  After the New York Times brought that classified program to the public's attention, it must be noted that nearly every member of Congress who reviewed the NSA initiative said it was an invaluable tool in America's war against terror.  Both Democrats and Republicans acknowledged the need for this type of intelligence-gathering and said the civil rights of the public were not in jeopardy due to its implementation.
 
But, once again, the New York Times felt it was necessary to inform the enemy of the methods being used by the United States government to fight them.
 
Indeed, during the inspection of the fortified dwelling, where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi met his doom at the end of two 500 pound laser-guided bombs dropped from above, a copy of Newsweek was found among the wreckage, close to al-Zarqawi's near lifeless body.  It has been reported the infamous terrorist had highlighted a column by Newsweek's Jonathan Alter.  It is apparent terrorists are planning their insurgency by reading reports and columns published in the West.  Amazingly, one of Newsweek's editors went so far as to criticize Alter on Don Imus' Morning Show (cable, MSNBC) who shamelessly was taking pride in the fact ruthless killers were reading his work while planning their insurgent mayhem.
 
It's safe to say if some politicians on the radical left and members of the media were allowed to act with no regard for America's security, the United States may have lost World War II.  It's also safe to assume if this kind of irresponsible journalism continues, the civilized world may lose the war against terror as well.  It's a sad day when individuals put journalism ahead of the welfare of their country and its citizens, especially when that country provides the journalistic freedom many members of the media enjoy while being protected by the Constitution.  Do they understand these rights would be only a dream, if the U.S. were to be defeated by the radical elements that wage war against us today?  To state the unthinkable, we may well lose the war against terror, but, in this case, it will not be the enemy's abroad who will defeat us.

Editor's note:  This column was first published June 27, 2006 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Hitler Fascism + Radical Islam Share Common Goal: Destruction of Jews

Commentary by Daniel Zanoza

Many on the left believe there is no such thing as evil.  Or, if they do believe in the concept, they see it in secular terms, meaning some people or groups think outside the lines of accepted behavior.  These humanists adhere to the philosophy of moral relativism and situational ethics which advances the idea evil is in the mind of the beholder.  In other words, what may be evil to one individual may not be evil to another.  Also, many on the left believe certain situations demand certain actions and those actions are justified.  Hence, the phrase, "The ends justify the means."

Most historians agree western civilization adheres to the Judeo-Christian ethos.  This means evil is something that's very real.  It can influence men, it can impact the way men think.  Evil is a palpable force, rooted in malevolence, bent upon the destruction of mankind.

Some who have experienced real evil agree with those who think of the concept in theological terms.  For example, people have felt the presence of real evil in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany and the killing fields of Cambodia.  Individuals have also encountered evil on a one on one basis, like those who have survived encounters with serial killers.  Survivors of such events tell stories that cannot be supported by the notion that evil is a subjective term.  They have seen its effects up close and personal.  They have looked the devil in the eye and know of his reality.

If one believes this interpretation of evil is true, we can look upon history from a different perspective.  Hitler believed the Jews were at the root of the world's problems and they caused Germany's disgrace at the end of World War I.  Hitler also believed Jews had to be eliminated from Europe, in order for Germany and the European continent to prosper and take its rightful place upon the world stage.  There are those who see the Nazis' mission in more religious terms.  The Jews were God's chosen people, according to the Old Testament.  If Hitler was truly evil and represented the devil incarnate, as I and many others believe, wiping out the Jews would have certainly been one of his priorities.  In fact, during some of the most important battles of World War II, Hitler often diverted material and troops away from the military, in order to carry out what he saw as "The Final Solution" which was the total annihilation of the Jewish race.  This mission took precedent over world conquest, in Hitler's warped mind.  Subsequently, one could say his mission was driven by evil to the point beyond human reason.  It was driven by evil beyond the reasoning of the people who surrounded him as well.  Indeed, those who were there at the time say Hitler had a charismatic aura that could not be described in human terms.  Yet if his plans were irrational and counterproductive to the welfare of the state, why did many continue to follow this madman until his--and their--demise?  They followed Hitler to the death of their nation as well.

The same analogy can be drawn today between Hitler's warped goals and the agenda of radical Islam.  Political correctness continually tells the world, Islamic extremists represent a small fraction of those who practice that faith.  Yet with every terrorist bombing and after every beheading of an innocent individual, this rationalization is beginning to lose its credibility with many the world over.  Of course, this is not to say every believer in Islam agrees with the agenda of Islamic extremists.  Also, it must be said members of all faiths can come under dark influences, history has told that story very well.  However, some on the left say terrorists are justified in the killing of innocent people.  They call them "freedom fighters" and compare them with America's Founding Fathers.  Radical thinkers, like Ward Churchill, a professor at the University of Colorado, claim the victims on 9/11 deserved their fate.  In fact, Churchill referred to those killed in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmann's" whose deaths were, in a way, justified because of America's international policies.  Adolf Eichmann was the architect of Hitler's "Final Solution" regarding the extermination of the Jews.

But, like Hitler, radical Islam seems to share the same goal:  The destruction of the Jewish race.  Islamic fanatics will tell you they simply want a Palestinian state, but at the same time, many proudly proclaim their goal is the destruction of Israel and its people.

In many terrorist incidents perpetrated by radical Islam, Jews have been singled out for attack.  From the terrorist assault during the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany, to the case of the Achile Lauro pleasure cruise in 1985 where 69 year-old wheel-chair bound Leon Klinghoffer was cast into the sea, Jews were actively pursued and murdered.  In no way could this have led to the creation of a Palestinian state.  These actions were evil.  They were not the acts of "freedom fighters" or revolutionaries.  These men had one goal and that was to kill as many Jews as possible.

The similarities between Hitler fascism and radical Islam cannot be denied.  Political correctness cannot obscure it.  Multiculturalism cannot deny it.  Nationalist fervor cannot justify it.  Since Hagar and Ishmael were cast out by Abraham, as related in an Old Testament story, the enmity towards the Jewish people from the Arab race has been palpable.  Certainly those of the Islamic faith have not been the only perpetrators of evil against the Jews.  As previously stated, evil can and does find its way into all races and faiths.  But when there is a unified effort to destroy those who some believe are God's chosen people, the concept of good vs. evil cannot be dismissed as religious superstition.

Editor's note:  This column was first published July 16, 2006.

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]   

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.